JUDGMENT Vineet Saran, J.
1. Brief facts of this case are that the petitioner was a student of LL.B. First Year. In the Environmental Law Paper of the First Semester Examination of LL.B. First Year, 2006 held on 23.1.2006, on inspection, the flying squad found that the petitioner was using unfair means and thus on 24.1.2006 the Examination Controller, Allahabad University, Respondent No. 2, issued a notice to the petitioner requiring him to reply to the following charge:
The college flying squad recovered from the possession of the examinee the admit card on the back page of which the examinee has written with pencil u.f.m. (unfair means) matter.
2. The petitioner thereafter submitted his reply on 1.3.2006, denying the charge, and categorically stating that he did not make use of any unfair means in the examination. However, thereafter on 12.4.2006 the Deputy Registrar (Examination), Respondent No. 3, held the petitioner to be guilty of using unfair means and cancelled his result of LL.B. 1st Year First Semester Examination, 2006. Aggrieved by the said order, this writ petition has been filed.
3. I have heard Sri Amitabh Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri A.B.L. Gaur, learned Senior counsel appearing with Sri Ram Gopal Tripathi, learned Counsel for the contesting Respondents No. 2 and 3. Pleadings between the parties have been exchanged and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage.
4. By order dated 19.7.2006, this Court had directed the respondents to produce the admit card which formed the basis of the charge against the petitioner of using unfair means; and also the answer copy of the petitioner, which have both been produced today. On perusal of the admit card it appears that on the back of the same only one number i.e. 482192 has been written by hand. Besides this, two words have been scored out by pen (not by pencil as has been charged). By no stretch of imagination can the number written on the back of the admit card be said to be any sufficient material for substantiating the allegation that the petitioner used the same for cheating in the examination. Even if it is presumed that two words were written which had been scored out by pen, the same also cannot form sufficient material for substantiating the charge against the petitioner. I have also perused the answering copy of the petitioner in which detailed answers have been given by the petitioner in his own hand-writing. The answers run into several pages. It is not understood as to how the said number or mere two words could be used by the petitioner in answering the questions to which detailed reply has been given. As such, in my view, the basis on which the impugned order has been passed holding that the petitioner was guilty of using unfair means cannot be justified by any standards.
5. Sri Gaur, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents, has submitted that Courts should not interfere with the decisions of the examining bodies with regard to use of unfair means. In this regard he has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education v. Vineeta Mahajan wherein it has been held that "the sine qua non, for the misconduct under the Rule, is the recovery of the incriminating material from the possession of the candidate. Once the candidate is found to be in possession of papers relevant to the examination, the requirement of the Rule is satisfied and there is no escape from the conclusion that the candidate has used unfair means at the examination. The Rule does not make any distinction between bona fide or mala fide possession of the incriminating material. ...The very fact that she took the papers relevant to the examination in the paper concerned and was found to be in possession of the same by the invigilator in the examination hall is sufficient to prove the charge of using unfair means by her in the examination under the Rule."
6. In the said case before the Supreme Court the candidate was found in possession of sufficient material which could have been used for answering the questions in the examination and in such circumstances, the Apex Court refused to interfere with the findings arrived at by the authorities. However, in the present case, no material whatsoever worth the name has been found in possession of the petitioner which could be said to be relevant to the examination. As already mentioned above, the number written on the back of the admit card, which formed the basis of passing the impugned order, could not in any manner help the petitioner in answering the questions of Environmental Law. As such, the finding of the University authorities that the petitioner was found in possession of material which could be used for answering the questions does not have any basis. It may be pertinent here to refer to the definition of "unauthorized material" in Clause 12(c) of Chapter XXVIII of University Ordinances. The said definition of unauthorized material enumerates that it must be material related to the subject of the examination. In the present case, a few digits can by no stretch of imagination be considered related or even remotely relevant to an Environmental Law Paper.
7. There is no other charge against the petitioner nor has the counsel for the respondents placed before me any other ground for passing the impugned order. As such the order dated 12.4.2006, by which the result of First Semester of LL.B. 1st Year Examination, 2006 of the petitioner has been cancelled is totally unjustified, and thus liable to be set aside.
8. It is true that Courts should normally not interfere with orders passed by examining bodies in cases of use of unfair means. However, in cases where the authorities act in a totally arbitrary manner which may prick the conscience of the Court, and pass orders charging a candidate of using unfair means, even when there is no material whatsoever for substantiating such charge, this Court would be failing in its duty if it refuses to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to set right the wrong committed by the University authorities. In the present case, for reasons best known to the University authorities, an order cancelling the result of the examination of the petitioner has been passed without there being any evidence or material on record to show that the petitioner had used the material, or could have used the same for answering the questions in the examination. As such, while allowing this writ petition, in my view, the petitioner would also be entitled to costs as he has, for no fault of his, lost one valuable year of his academic career. In my assessment, a token cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. Five thousand) should be imposed on the University authorities, although the same may not be sufficient compensation to the petitioner for the loss of his one year.
9. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed. The order dated 12.4.2006 passed by Deputy Registrar (Exam.) is quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. Five thousand) from the respondent No. 2.